If, as I expect, Micheal wins handily (and I think he can close the deal by the end of 44) then that will discourage other players from trying this out and the problem solves itself.

Yes, BUT what about Axis players who have a bad summer 41 and decide that rather than do the honorable thing and surrender decide to go down this path in an attempt to bore their opponent in to accepting a draw or quitting the game in disgust?

What is needed here is a Auto Victory level that would take this strategy away all together.

Pelton I suspect puts very little time in to his turns now that he has his 'system' in place. But I have to labor away for hours to gain the victory, that should already have been awarded.

As I stated elsewhere, my preferred solution here would be to impose a permanent victory level modifier in favor of the Soviet if, say, the Axis doesn't have X number of VPs as of July of 1942. This will put a lot of pressure on the Axis to concede if the turtle doesn't work out, but if he wants to grind it out, he can grind it out and at best do no better than a minor Soviet win even if he holds Berlin. Grats. In order to get a draw the Axis is going to have to hold somewhere near the start line in this situation.

Such a level shift will also encourage offensive operations going into 1942.

I agree that the early turtle strategy was almost certainly never going to happen, Hitler wouldn't have any of it. But a premature surrender with the Red Army hundreds of miles east of Berlin also doesn't sit right with me.

I am not talking about a historical surrender condition, of course Hitler would not surrender. I am talking about a condition that ends the *game* early when all things being equal the end result is clear. Thats all. This is what most Auto Victory conditions try to achieve. Ending clearly one sided games early. Hell make it optional if need be.

The reason this particular game has devolved into a WWI type situation is quite simple: Pelton ran away and decided to go turtle early.

This has nothing to do with the game engine and everything to do with a conscious strategic choice made by the Axis player. Now, some folks say that said choice shouldn't even be available. I'm going withold judgment on that pending the outcome of this game. If, as I expect, Micheal wins handily (and I think he can close the deal by the end of 44) then that will discourage other players from trying this out and the problem solves itself.

+1

I have mentioned it befeore. I find this strategy interesting and the game is certainly testing the boundry of what is a normal game. I also hope this doesn't work out for Pelton because if it does, then it may become the staple of German tactics in order to gain a victory, even if it is a minor one but only after a very long and tedious game for the Russian.

Yes, BUT what about Axis players who have a bad summer 41 and decide that rather than do the honorable thing and surrender decide to go down this path in an attempt to bore their opponent in to accepting a draw or quitting the game in disgust?

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you. I think that the games played by Brad and me to the bitter end shows that there should not really be considered a bore to play it out. This does ofc however require that both players continue to try. An autovictory option would stop me from playing the game at all as I play poorly, however I accept that I will eventually lose the game, but I will give it my best to the game is over. Had the autovictory been in place, my games would end early and I would lose interest rather quickly.

These things, like Auto Victory, are always optional. That way both types of players can be pleased. Players agree before the game what VC they will implement. As it is now. You can play either the stock CG or the Alt. I would say just add some early Auto VC for the Soviets in the Alt.

I would also add that if it were a 'normal' game that included the usual blizzard CA and then the German 42 O then it would be far more interesting and fun to play. This ploy by Pelton is an aberation that should be stamped out. Beleive me it has not been a lot of fun so far.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx I agree that the early turtle strategy was almost certainly never going to happen, Hitler wouldn't have any of it. But a premature surrender with the Red Army hundreds of miles east of Berlin also doesn't sit right with me.

German military doctrine was centered around offensive operations, how do we translate that into the game? It would have been a start if there had been different offensive/defensive CVs maybe but nothing we'll see in the game now. Maybe hope for it in WitE 2.0.

If we look at things in a historical perspective the germans attempted to launch a final offensive in the spring of -45, not quite Pelton's style in this game to be sure.

Point is, panzer (and russian tank) units should be considerably stronger on offense than on defense. Armor penalty for attacking in city/urban terrain could probably have been a little higher as well but I'm nitpicking.

Basically I'm agreeing with your sentiment Flaviusx, I just think the game should have better reflected the german strategic and operational doctrine then this wouldn't become WW1.

The last few turns have seen the battles limited to the area's shown in red on the map. There have also been some successful Axis counter attacks in these area's as well, an unusual reaction from herr Pelton. But not an unwelcomed one. It confirms he is actually spending some time on a turn :)

The inset map shows a close up around Minsk where the heaviest fighting has been the last few turns.

The latest patch has put a dampener on the divisional wave attacks. Their employment know is only used in favourable circumstances. This is not an issue for me as I now have enough Corp sized units to inflict some pain on the Axis and I am conserving some ARM points now for upgrades and ART XX so the insane 'Stalin' attacks are no more. As you will see from the loss screen this turn saw a ratio of near 2:1 for our attacks. But we inflicted only enough loss on the enemy to hopefully keep his manpower and arm pools in check.

This leads me to the whole reason why I have persisted with these attacks. Simply to keep the German OOB and Pools under control. I really don't want to risk having to grind in 1944. Which may have been on the cards if the Germans were allowed to go unmolested for all of 1942. This is why I have not attacked Finland. All my efforts have been concentrated on Germany. Crushing Finland is not going to get me to Berlin any faster and I am getting enough Guard Corp from my successful attacks on the main front. My original intent was to attack the Finns but the 'Stalin' attacks ate up too many resources to allow it.

Bottom line is I would rather be facing a German OOB of ~ 3.5 M by 1943 with Finland still around than a possible German OOB of ~ 4.0 M with no Finland. That simple.

10 more Inf Corp came on line this turn. Total now at 35. This should allow me 2 or 3 winning battles per turn that will inflict ~10K of losses on Germany, that should be enough to keep the OOB and Pools under control (when you include attrition). Once the rivers freeze I will be able to put some pain on him in the south and from 1943 on the slippery slide for the Reich will begin.

Crushing Finland simplifies the strategic situation, allows you wind down that entire theater and redeploy everything to the main front, and gives your troops easy wins to put them in guards status.

You are not going to dramatically accelerate anything bashing away at the main front right now. Your first real offensive will begin in the winter. That will open things up some, especially down south where river lines form the basis of the Axis defense.

Then you should aim at knocking out Romania ASAP. That blows a huge hole in the Axis lines. From there, it is a race to Berlin.

Mere attrition, especially on unfavorable terms as at present, is not a war winning strategy by itself. You have to combine that with a plan that knocks out the weaker props in the Axis structure. The Germans, shed of their minors on both northern and especially southern flanks, are a much easier nut to crack.

MT I see your point about ignoring Finland, as they cannot defend Berlin. However, I still think Flav makes a good point regarding Finland. To me its less about simplifying the strategic situation, and more about getting some easy wins and getting some guard units.

I do agree with taking out Romania- which to me translates to a serious offensive in the south. The south is a good place to attack anyways, due to terrain.

I just think the game should have better reflected the german strategic and operational doctrine then this wouldn't become WW1.

Isn't the point of the game to try out some different strategies than the German General Staff did? I mean otherwise we could just buy a book... If people want straitjackets I think they can find agreeable house rules.

In this game I don't suspect Pelton doubts the outcome, but it is giving him a great lab to refine defensive tactics. Does no one remember last March when he said reserves simply didn't work? I'm not aware of anything being changed in patches in that regard, but it is clear he's been taught a few tricks, learned a few tricks, and we're getting a chance to learn from this experience. Even if it is a bit tedious for MT. MT is a very capable player, so he has the best 'lab rat' he can find.

I suspect, when not caught flat footed trying to left hook Leningrad, Pelton will put what he's learning here to better use in future games with a starting point a tad further east.

Trash Finland with non-guard divs and corps. Get guardsmen all around the board faster than light. Rince. Repeat. And profit.

If you can trash German troops with multi-corps attacks, no reason why Finland should prove to be a problem. The faster you resolve the Carelian issue in a big bath of blood, the faster you'll get proficient troops in numbers for real work down south...

The extreme attrition continues. The inset map shows where most of the action and hun death is taking place, just to the south of Riga. INF Corp upgrades and Art XX are now just around the corner. The game at last is becoming fun and interesting once again. It has been a long wait but Pelton will soon be suffering some real pain. I plan to have 500 AP in the bank come Jan 1943 and he can expect another 40 Inf Corp plonked on the map. This Soviet Army is going to be a beast. Note the very healty Manpower and Arm pools.

I am not interested in Finland period. I have plenty of Guard conversions coming from killing Germans. Why waste bullets on Finns? My total commitment to keeping them under control amounts to a few useless Cav div's and assorted brigades. Berlin is the target, but Rumania and Hungary are on the radar :)

You might note some of the rather pathetic looking CV's of his Mech reserves. Peltons reserve system has been doing my job for me

Pelton's Reserve optimization defense puts a lot of wear and tear on the Reserve units. You have to be careful and pull back the Reserve units that are being caught up occasionally and allow them to refit - just the same as the front line units. I find that one reserve for three frontline and one in refit seems to be about right for long term action - but long term grinding can get ahead of the refit curve here.

I have worked out a rough Soviet Army 2.0 schedule from between now (Oct 1942) and May 1943. Currently I have 40 INF, 10 Tk and 4 Mech XXX. I plan to have 120 INF, 24 Tk and 12 Mech XXX, plus 30 Art XX and 6 Rct XX by Spring 43.

I still have around 40 Inf X and 370 Inf XX. I plan to use the 40 X and 80 XX for 40 INF XXX and another 120 XX for another 40 INF XXX. So I will have the 120 INF XXX in total plus ~160 XX available for further INF Corp as we progress thru summer 43. Naturally the Mech and Art units will also increase thru summer 43 as more Trucks and ARM become available. This is going to be some steamroller, fun times at last

ORIGINAL: Michael T Yes, BUT what about Axis players who have a bad summer 41 and decide that rather than do the honorable thing and surrender decide to go down this path in an attempt to bore their opponent in to accepting a draw or quitting the game in disgust?

Solve it on a community level. If a player is acting in bad faith, blacklist him.

ORIGINAL: Michael T Yes, BUT what about Axis players who have a bad summer 41 and decide that rather than do the honorable thing and surrender decide to go down this path in an attempt to bore their opponent in to accepting a draw or quitting the game in disgust?

Solve it on a community level. If a player is acting in bad faith, blacklist him.

I mean I don't support the decision to go back to Poland and remain defensive from winter 41 onwards. But what is the point of having a 41-45 game if every Axis player who has a bad summer is forced to surrender? This game now is a special case. It was never done before and I doubt it will be utilized again.

I think until you face such a situation you can't appreciate the dissapointment and frustration.

I can, there is a reason I haven't finished my first two GC as the Axis against the AI (well, there's the difference, against the AI you can quit and still win). But I think this game is simply an abberation, a crazy experiment. There is no need to force every Axis player to surrender if the 41 campaign goes bad, as long as the retreat-to-Poland-and-stay-on-the-defensive-from-then-on doesn't become a common sight.

I think until you face such a situation you can't appreciate the dissapointment and frustration.

And boredom. If nothing is done to prevent this then it could become a successful strategy for people who play the Axis side and lose the game early on but can't accept defeat.I'm sure a lot of people, including me, would have quit in disgust by now which of course technically would be marked down as a defeat. This game is such a huge investment in time that I think if you're going to conduct an 'experiment' like this you should get the o.k from your opponent first.It's disrespectful not to. If I ever play the Soviet side in a 41 campaign again I'd be wanting a house rule to prevent any chance of this happening.